The plural in the title is telling. In this 20,000 foot overview, Hanson sees very the various conflicts of the collective idea of World War 2 as more distinct than the popular imagining. The variations came over time, technology, and ideology as opposed to simple geography. Hanson starts with the fact that in any rational estimation of the situation, the outcome of the war was foreordained. Had anyone sat down in 1939 and tried to determine if the Axis powers could fight a war as it was to be fought for domination of the world it would have been objectively impossible to see them succeed.
Of course, no one did such a thing. Decisions were made based on delusion, many of them were in fact racist delusions. Axis powers often fell into the trap of believing their opponents were inferior in mettle and so a temporary tactical or niche strategic advantage would be enough to secure victory. After a few early victories by the Axis it became apparent that the Allies would readily adapt, and anything they couldn't adapt to they would just outproduce into oblivion.
Hanson shows how this played out thematically in chapters on air power, naval power, infantry, artillery, leadership, etc. and gives the numbers, sometimes exhaustively, to back up his ideas. He is also a classicist, so as an added bonus you get comparables from history for many battles and concepts, pointing out nuances in the historical effectiveness of siegecraft or the primacy of infantry no matter how strong your navy (or air force).
When it comes to leaders, he weighs in as pro-Patton, down on Bradley and MacArthur and Montgomery to some extent. Churchill comes out well, Roosevelt and Stalin (as war leaders) did OK if not stellar. Hitler was, of course, a disaster.
Like virtually every popular historian I have read he engages in judgements that can seem arbitrary. One campaign is faulted for being too timid while another for being too aggressive. One leader should have paid more attention to details while another could not see the big picture. There may be valid reasons for the judgments that time, word count, or narrative limitations do not allow, but in the absence of explanation these can see like simple ex post facto rationalization. Like I said, I have yet to read a popular history that doesn't involve this to some extent.
Hanson writes in a very clear, forthright style -- perfect for history or non-fiction in general. Should you read The Second World Wars? Yes, if you are curious about the topic or are steeped in it and want to know how the winds of opinion are blowing. WW2 was the most monumental event in human history and it is slowly vanishing from living memory. Even those who heard stories of it from their parents, like Yours Truly, are sliding into old age. The great mass of Millenials will be unable to distinguish it from any other war from the olden days, never bothering to wonder of the source of the epithet "Nazi" that they fling wantonly at each other over Twitter. One can only hope that in each succeeding generation there will at least be a few folks who maintain a weird interest in this obscure historical topic. I suspect The Second World Wars will be on their core reading list.
